Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 773
[Citation : 2012(1) RLW 382 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Praveen Chand Mandawaria Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Mehta, J.)
HON'BLE SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Praveen Chand Mandawaria
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 892 of 2010, decided on 09.08.2011
Mahendra Gaur, for Petitioner;
N.A. Naqvi, A.A.G., for Respondent
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sec. 7 — Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet — F.I.R. was registered by Addl. S.P. — No evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe — F.I.R. does not disclose any offence — Held — As per provisions of Secs. 2(O) and 36 Cr.P.C., in absence of the officer-in-charge of Police Station, the next officer in rank present and above the rank of a constable or the officer as authorised by the State Govt., in this behalf, time to time is entitled to file the F.I.R. — All the ingredients necessary for commission of offences under the Act are very much in existence on the record of the case — For the purposes of taking cognizance and framing of charges, only a prima facie is to be seen — No case u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
Petition dismissed. (Paras 12 to 16)
na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 482( Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 7 & ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ,oa vkjksi i= dks vfHk[kf.Mr djuk & ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd }kjk ntZ dh xbZ & fj'or dh ekax ,oa izfrxzg.k dk dksbZ lk{; ugha & ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- fdlh vijk/k dk [kqyklk ugha djrh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /kkjk 2¼o½ rFkk 36 na-iz-la- ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj iqfyl Fkkus ds izHkkjh vf/kdkjh dh vuqifLFkfr esa jSad esa vxyk mifLFkr vf/kdkjh rFkk dkaLVscy ls Åij dh jSad okyk vf/kdkjh ;k bl gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk le; le; ij ;Fkk vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- nk;j djus ds fy, gdnkj gksxk & vf/kfu;e ds rgr vijk/k dkfjr djus gsrq vko';d lHkh vo;o izdj.k ds vfHkys[k ij c[kwch fo|eku gS & laKku ysus rFkk vkjksi fojfpr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ dsoy izFke n`"V;k ekeyk gksuk gh ns[kuk gksrk gS & na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 482 ds rgr dksbZ ekeyk cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ¼in la[;k 12 ls 16½
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
2. The petitioner has challenged the FIR filed against him on the following grounds:-
(a) The FIR does not disclose any offence.
(b) The petitioner cannot be fixed with the liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act because neither the petitioner made any demand of bride from the complainant nor did he accept any bribe.
(c) The petitioner was not in a position to pass the bills and release the payments of the complainant.
(d) The criminal proceedings are attributed with malafide.
(e) It has also been submitted that registration of the FIR is illegal because the FIR has been registered by the S.P. 1, Anti Corruption Bureau, whereas the power to register the FIR was with the DG, Anti Corruption Bureau.
3. The matter was posted before this Court on 19.7.2011 and a question was put to the counsel for the petitioner about the maintainability of the petition because of the charge-sheet being filed subsequent to the filing of the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petition was maintainable and has placed reliance on certain judgments, particularly the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jitendra Mohan Gupta vs. State 1992 Cr.L.J. 4016 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Om Prakash Babbar vs. Haryana State Electricity Board. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 SC 117) for the purposes of canvassing his argument regarding the FIR being illegally registered by the Additional S.P.
5. Per contra, Shri NA Naqvi, learned Addl. Advocate General, on behalf of Anti Corruption Bureau, has submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived It has been submitted that the Additional S.P. was very much entitled and empowered to register the FIR in view of the notification of the State Government. It has further that the aforesaid notification of the State Government was relied upon and approved by this Court in two cases being SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 112/2000, State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Bhagwan Saraogi decided on 15.11.2000 and SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 755/1999, State of Rajasthan vs. Motilal Parasher, decided on 21.9.1999. The aforesaid notification of the State Government has been upheld by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions. It has also been argued that if at all, the petitioner was aggrieved of the notification mentioned above, then he had to challenge the validity/vires by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. As regards the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner regarding there being no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and there being no evidence as regards the demand of bribe by the petitioner and the acceptance thereof, were not sustainable in view of the fact that both these facts were well disclosed from the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant and other material available on the record. It was also submitted that the petitioner was continuously contacting the complainant even after taking an illegal gratification sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant and after the tainted amount of Rs. 2,000/- was accepted by one Shri RD Gupta, co-accused in the presence of the petitione
